Post navigation

Michigan Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Weaver has accused Chief Justice Clifford Taylor of mishandling the court’s recent appointment of Judge John Chmura as chief judge of the 37th District Court.

Weaver, the lone dissenter to the order appointing Chmura, says Taylor “effectively interfered with the chief judge appointment process.”

Both Chmura and Judge Jennifer Faunce, the 37th District Court’s chief judge pro tem, sought the chief judge appointment. Here’s what happened next, according to Weaver:

“On October 7, 2008, State Court Administrator Carl Gromek sent a copy of Judge Faunce’s fax, dated October 7, withdrawing her name from consideration for the chief judge position. Based on this information, I telephoned Judge Faunce’s office on October 7 in the late afternoon to inquire about her withdrawal. She was not available at that time, so I left a message for her to call me if she would like to discuss the matter.

“The following morning, October 8, at approximately 9:15 a.m., Judge Faunce returned my call. When I inquired as to why she withdrew, she told me that she was informed that she did not have the votes to be appointed. Therefore, she withdrew her name from consideration. I expressed to her that I had planned to vote for her and would continue to do so at the administrative conference. …

“At the October 8, 2008 administrative conference at approximately 10:20 a.m., Chief Justice Taylor announced that there was only one candidate remaining for the Chief Judge position. At that point, Justice Kelly asked if anyone knew why Judge Faunce had withdrawn. Chief Justice Taylor explained that he was of the view that there were four (4) votes for Judge Chmura, and that he had decided to call Judge Faunce to inform her that there were four votes for Judge Chmura and that Judge Faunce was welcome to withdraw or stay, but that he did not want her to be embarrassed because there were four votes for Judge Chmura and she would lose. Chief Justice Taylor related that Judge Faunce told him that she would withdraw her name and she did so.”

Weaver didn’t mince any words when explaining her view of the chief’s explanation:

“Chief Justice Taylor’s action of telling Judge Faunce that there were four votes for Judge Chmura and that Judge Faunce was welcome to withdraw or stay, before the justices had ever met to discuss and vote on the chief judge appointment, is another example of his unprofessional, improper, and unfair conduct as chief justice. [footnote omitted]

“Chief Justice Taylor’s actions effectively interfered with the chief judge appointment process because what he told Judge Faunce during his telephone call caused her to withdraw her name before the justices of this Court had even met to discuss the appointment.”

Taylor has a tendency to play things close to the vest, and that is not good, according to Weaver:

“Harmful to the proper functioning of the justice system is Chief Justice Taylor’s inclination to act secretly, not openly and transparently with respect to the administrative business of this Court. Administrative appointments of chief judges – judges who are elected public officials – constitute public administrative business, not personnel matters. Judges are not employees of the Michigan Supreme Court. They are elected officials of their counties or jurisdictions and are effectively only employees of the people of their counties or jurisdictions within the state of Michigan. This inclination toward secrecy also deprives the people of the information they need to properly make judgments on the justices’ performance of their duties. The Supreme Court should not be a secret club run for the benefit of justices and judges.”

Weaver’s solution is to publish administrative conference agendas at least three days before each conference and to prepare “draft proposed minutes” no more than three days after each conference.

These items would be available on the court’s website if Weaver had her way.

And as for the actual conferences? Those would be televised live unless personnel matters were involved.

I think the Legislature and the Governor should take the lead and begin to publish all party caucus meeting agenda, and all agenda of meetings between the Governor, the Speaker of the House, and the Senate Majority Leader, when these meetings will concern the discussion of draft legislation. After all, the Legislature and the Governor work for the people of the State of Michigan, and they don’t have a secret club either. While they’re at it, the Governor should probably go ahead and publish the agenda of her cabinet meetings as well. All of these meetings should be televised, since the administrative business of the Governor or the Legislature can’t possibly be less important for the people to know about than the administrative business of the Supreme Court.